Reporting completeness of scoping reviews in orthodontic literature up to 2022. An empirical study

Author:

Mikelis Filippos1,Koletsi Despina23ORCID

Affiliation:

1. School of Dentistry, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens , Athens , Greece

2. Clinic of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich , Zurich , Switzerland

3. Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University , California , USA

Abstract

Summary Aim To assess the quality of reporting of Scoping Reviews (ScRs) in Orthodontics according to the PRISMA Extension Checklist for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Our secondary aim was to identify publication characteristics, such as year of publication, journal, inclusion of a reporting guideline, and study registration, associated with ScRs reporting quality. Materials and Methods Pubmed, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection were searched as of 1 August 2022 for identification of orthodontic ScRs. This was supplemented by electronic searches within the contents of eleven specialty journals. The item-specific and overall reporting quality score of the examined orthodontic ScRs, based on the PRISMA Extension Checklist for Scoping Reviews were recorded. Association of reporting quality score with publication characteristics was further examined. Results A total of 40 ScRs were identified and included, with a mean reporting quality score of 73.0 per cent (standard deviation = 14). The majority of studies were published from 2020 onwards (32/40; 80.0%). Of the most adequately reported items were the summary of the evidence description in the Discussion (38/40; 95.0%) and the selection of the sources of evidence in the Results section (34/40; 85.0%). Protocol registration and reporting of limitations were missed in almost half of the ScRs (19/40; 47.5%), while less than half studies were adequately justified (18/40; 45.0%). According to the multivariable linear regression, adherence to appropriate reporting guidelines resulted in improved reporting quality score by 10 per cent (β-coefficient: 0.10; 95% CI: 0.002, 0.19; P = 0.04), conditional on year and journal of publication. Year, journal of publication, and registration practices did not appear as significant predictors (P > 0.05 in all instances). Conclusions The reporting quality of the examined orthodontic ScRs was suboptimal, with questionable justification for their conduct and certain items being mostly affected.

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

Orthodontics

Reference30 articles.

1. The reporting quality of randomized controlled trials in orthodontics;Lempesi;Journal of Evidence Based Dental Practice,2014

2. The evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in orthodontic literature. Where do we stand;Koletsi;European Journal of Orthodontics,2015

3. Systematic reviews published in higher impact clinical journals were of higher quality;Fleming;Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,2014

4. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.3 (updated February 2022). Cochrane;Higgins

5. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews;Page;Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,2021

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3